Keir Starmer’s Hollow Language
Here’s an attempt to clarify one area where Keir Starmer is going wrong — at least going wrong with his messaging, even if the fault in messaging betrays a deeper problem or absence. In a recent Observer opinion piece, Starmer demonstrated the same failing as has been evident in his scripted, set piece speeches.
Starmer uses a lot of language that would need to be — and is not — attached to something specific in order to have meaning.
In the Observer article mentioned above, Starmer talks about “harnessing everyone’s talents”, the need to “be bold” and remedy “inequality” and ensure that “no one is left behind”; the need to “match the moment” with an “economy that works for everyone”; a “more prosperous future”, etc.
It’s just wind. Starmer needs to tell us about actual clean-energy job creation schemes, education and training. What about thought-out plans for social care or expanding legal aid? If Starmer could expound solid or even provisional proposals, we could, by ourselves, read-in the buzz words. We could read-in what the Labour leader’s proposals represented, i.e., the boldness, the remedying inequality, etc.
It makes me wonder, doesn’t Starmer have advisers, including people, perhaps professional writers/editors, to help with language? It also makes me wonder whether the Labour Party’s straight-talkers, such as David Lammy, Chris Bryant, might fare better?
With all that said, I personally have time for Starmer. People who know him confirm that he absolutely is the decent person he seems to be. Unlike many or most of Labour’s top team these days, Starmer just carries the right kind of “weight” to fill the leader’s role. He has been on the whole very convincing at PMQs.
Until now as leader, Starmer has performed well when he has had to react, respond, interrogate. Stick an existing problem, issue or unpalatable Tory policy in front of Starmer and he’s good inquisitor. Where he needs to do better is in terms of creating what doesn’t exist already, coming up with and narrating firm policy. He fields what’s thrown at him; he doesn’t make the play.
Starmer has many challenges. One among them is the need to persuade erstwhile “red wall” voters (at least, the “morally conservative” ex-Labour stereotype) that there’s a real, tangible alternative to Johnson’s soft English nationalism. He needs to show red wallers that English nationalism is not the solution they need, as much as it might sound nice, appeal to their sensibilities. And Starmer needs to inject some urgency if wants to rescue the United Kingdom: clearly, English nationalism is anathema to Scottish voters.
